Talk:Men Going Their Own Way: Difference between revisions
→This is probably the worst article on Wikipedia now. This is why they don't get my $5 every year.: new section Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
VersaceSpace (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1118039564 by 207.155.30.233 (talk) noted |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
{{Pb}}These are contradictory statements. If PUAs and MGTOWers fundamentally oppose each other, how can they have mutual membership? That's how I understand this. To be honest, I'm not bothered to go through the refs right now (coz it's a lotta work) but I just thought to bring this up for anyone who might want to improve the article — [[User:Python Drink|Python Drink]] ([[User talk:Python Drink|talk]]) 18:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
{{Pb}}These are contradictory statements. If PUAs and MGTOWers fundamentally oppose each other, how can they have mutual membership? That's how I understand this. To be honest, I'm not bothered to go through the refs right now (coz it's a lotta work) but I just thought to bring this up for anyone who might want to improve the article — [[User:Python Drink|Python Drink]] ([[User talk:Python Drink|talk]]) 18:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
:I assume you're talking about the sentence in the History section, not the lead? The two groups referred to in that sentence are "MGTOW" and "alt-right", not "MGTOW" and "PUAs". [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 18:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
:I assume you're talking about the sentence in the History section, not the lead? The two groups referred to in that sentence are "MGTOW" and "alt-right", not "MGTOW" and "PUAs". [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 18:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
== This is probably the worst article on Wikipedia now. This is why they don't get my $5 every year. == |
|||
Stop spreading your agenda. This is a work for posterity. [[Special:Contributions/207.155.30.233|207.155.30.233]] ([[User talk:207.155.30.233|talk]]) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:58, 24 October 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Men Going Their Own Way article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Q1: Why is MGTOW called anti-feminist and misogynist?
A1: Many published, reliable sources such as scholarly journals and books describe MGTOW as anti-feminist and/or misogynist,[1][2][3][4] and no reliable sources contradicting these descriptors have been found. Q2: Why is MGTOW linked to white supremacy and the alt-right?
Q3: But what if the sources are biased?
A3: Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past. Q4: How do I get something changed on this page?
A4: First, review the talk page and its archives to see if your concerns have been raised before. Collect at least one, but preferably several, independent, reliable sources that directly support the changes you want to make. (Personal experience with the MGTOW community doesn't count.) Then start a discussion on the talk page to obtain consensus for your changes. Finally, make a specific edit request, clearly indicating your proposed changes and the sources that support it.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Men Going Their Own Way. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Men Going Their Own Way at the Reference desk. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like the word misogynistic and white supremesist removed from this article. It's offensive to tar all men with the same brush. 94.175.115.150 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not done the article isn't about "men" in general, it's about the group and it's ideology, which is well sourced. So it won't be removed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit so that readers understand it is not ran by white supremacists. This article is not accurate and strongly comes off as it is followed by racist ppl. Remove "overlap'. ChiefRunningBear91 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
CLC ChiefRunningBear91 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not done as per previous discussions. This also isn't exactly what the article says. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word misogynistic. 129.15.64.230 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC) MGTOW is not misogynistic. Reading that in the first line makes this article lack credibility. It sounds like something written by an ultra feminist. MGTOW is about men recognizing that the current form and direction of dependent relationships with women (especially marriage in western countries) no longer benefits them, and making the choice to avoid those relationships since they now only mostly benefit women.
- Not done: That is how the movement is described in reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Read the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MGTOW is not "misogynistic" it's just men going their own way. Is feminism listed as "misandristic"? A movement isn't misogynistic, individuals are. Wikipedia is making a blanket statement based on individual behaviours. RP ad2022 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: See "Q1: Why is MGTOW called anti-feminist and misogynist?" at the top of this page as well as the response just prior to this one. General Ization Talk 18:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- @General Ization: would you minding sharing a link? I'm on mobile and I can't see anything like that — Python Drink (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- The direct link is here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Pierre Poilievre
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
How is the section on Poilievre of historical relevance? He has no known involvement with the community and was unaware of the hidden tag that was likely added without his knowledge. This should be removed unless there is a clear connection between him (or his online content) and the community. 129.222.184.120 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- The tags were on his own YouTube channel, as covered by reliable sources. It is not the role of the Wikipedia to prove a negative for you. Zaathras (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be removed, but I do think we could trim it a bit. It's punching above its weight class in the History section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think someone vying to be the leader of a G7 nation being tied to MGTOW is definitely relevant, but the current text is a bit much. Not sure it needs to include a section about how hashtags work. 174.138.198.183 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be removed, but I do think we could trim it a bit. It's punching above its weight class in the History section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I 100% agree. It's disgusting that Wikipedia is being used to amplify a political attack campaign. These edits need to be reverted, they have no place here. --Bananas21ca (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: I'm closing this request while it is under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion Regarding Recent Edit Requests
It is stated in the faq's that no reliable sources contrary to the "misogynist" label have been provided. If I can provide some, would anyone be willing to help me cite them?
I would also like to call attention to WP:IMPARTIAL - Wikipedia shouldn't be engaging in this debate, but simply documenting it. Our reputation as a non-partisan purveyor of information is at stake. Sober Reasoning (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to help add content cited to such sources. Please read WP:RS for guidance on what counts as a reliable source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still performing my research and currently on my first source. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1618037&dswid=-5088 p49 of the pdf linked on that page (p49 of the text, not the pdf itself) Sober Reasoning (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Master's theses are discussed in the guideline I linked you to.
"Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Master's theses are discussed in the guideline I linked you to.
- I'm still performing my research and currently on my first source. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1618037&dswid=-5088 p49 of the pdf linked on that page (p49 of the text, not the pdf itself) Sober Reasoning (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Sober ReasoningBut also see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. I'm concerned however, that the consensus among scholars and big media may be skewed by a concerted partisan effort among academia and media. Is there a Wikipedia policy dealing with such scenarios? Sober Reasoning (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- So you're claiming there's a conspiracy, of which only you have true knowledge? Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not claiming any conspiracies. I'm voicing a concern for the sake of discussion, that most articles from large media and academia on this topic may be written from a predominantly liberal and pro-feminist viewpoint and that conservative views may be underrepresented. I don't believe this is a conspiracy theory; I think it can be demonstrated through a review of the various literatures and could warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how one would go about demonstrating it for encyclopedic purposes, or how Wikipedia would handle such a situation. I hope that clarifies my previous comment. Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia handles it like anything else where there are fringe views that have no support in mainstream publications. See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable academic and journalistic sources. They may not agree with your wishes or perceptions. That's not Wikipedia's concern, unless and until the consensus of reliable sources changes. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- We come into the issue of Wikipedia's non-partisanship at that point. Even if the sources are considered reliable, and aren't required to be non-biased, how do we claim non-partisanship of our assertions if the majority of reliable sources are partisan? WP:IMPARTIAL
otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.
Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)- You misunderstand WP:NPOV. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable sources, and give fringe views due weight according to their prominence and coverage in mainstream sources. It does not demand false balance equivocation or advocacy of fringe views -- =rather the opposite. In point of fact, NPOV requires that WP plainly state the consensus of reliable sources, and, if appropriate to note prominent dissenting views. In this case, there are no prominent dissenting voices that anyone has set forth. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the policy of giving various views due weight, and that no prominent dissenting voices have been set forth. I'm not suggesting that we jump on changing the article itself. My goal was to open a discussion about those sources and potential partisanship that may be there, and how we may handle prominent dissenting opinions if some can be brought forth. I'm also concerned about the use of Mark Zuckerberg as a reliable source in citation 2 of the article. Besides his wealth and fame, what lends him credence as an authority on this topic? Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- So, you saw "Zuckerberg" in the citation and knee-jerked yourself into thinking this article was quoting the CEO of Facebook? Why don't you re-read that citation and try again... Zaathras (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Mark Zuckerberg probably isn't, But Donna Zuckerberg, who is who's cited, appears to have written on the subject. Perhaps you should read the article and the sources (of which there are a mujltitude) more closely? Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I see now it was Donna Zuckerberg. Thank you for the clarification on that item. Sober Reasoning (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the policy of giving various views due weight, and that no prominent dissenting voices have been set forth. I'm not suggesting that we jump on changing the article itself. My goal was to open a discussion about those sources and potential partisanship that may be there, and how we may handle prominent dissenting opinions if some can be brought forth. I'm also concerned about the use of Mark Zuckerberg as a reliable source in citation 2 of the article. Besides his wealth and fame, what lends him credence as an authority on this topic? Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- You misunderstand WP:NPOV. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable sources, and give fringe views due weight according to their prominence and coverage in mainstream sources. It does not demand false balance equivocation or advocacy of fringe views -- =rather the opposite. In point of fact, NPOV requires that WP plainly state the consensus of reliable sources, and, if appropriate to note prominent dissenting views. In this case, there are no prominent dissenting voices that anyone has set forth. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- We come into the issue of Wikipedia's non-partisanship at that point. Even if the sources are considered reliable, and aren't required to be non-biased, how do we claim non-partisanship of our assertions if the majority of reliable sources are partisan? WP:IMPARTIAL
- Wikipedia handles it like anything else where there are fringe views that have no support in mainstream publications. See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable academic and journalistic sources. They may not agree with your wishes or perceptions. That's not Wikipedia's concern, unless and until the consensus of reliable sources changes. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it can be demonstrated
— The best way to write Wikipedia articles is to review the sourcing available, and then write articles based on the viewpoints expressed therein. Choosing a position, then searching far and wide for sources that might support it that you think may be out there, is a good way to end up with an unbalanced article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not claiming any conspiracies. I'm voicing a concern for the sake of discussion, that most articles from large media and academia on this topic may be written from a predominantly liberal and pro-feminist viewpoint and that conservative views may be underrepresented. I don't believe this is a conspiracy theory; I think it can be demonstrated through a review of the various literatures and could warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how one would go about demonstrating it for encyclopedic purposes, or how Wikipedia would handle such a situation. I hope that clarifies my previous comment. Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to the desire for WP:IMPARTIAL language, and I do my best to respect this in my own edits. But people raising this issue do themselves no favors when they start alleging "partisan" bias among reliable sources. For one thing, reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Virtually all RSes are unanimous in that MGTOW promotes misogyny. Even if saying as much in WP:WIKIVOICE is less than ideal, all previous attempts to change this read more as efforts to whitewash the topic, which is worse than some opinionated language IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- So you're claiming there's a conspiracy, of which only you have true knowledge? Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. I'm concerned however, that the consensus among scholars and big media may be skewed by a concerted partisan effort among academia and media. Is there a Wikipedia policy dealing with such scenarios? Sober Reasoning (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Statements regarding PUAs and MGTOWers
A sentence in the lead states: (emphasis mine)
{Pb}}
The two groups overlap both in membership and in ideology; both believe that feminism has destroyed Western society.
In the section, "Relation to other manosphere groups" > "Men's rights movement", we read:
The MGTOW community has a reciprocal disdain for pickup artists (PUAs) due to their differing opinions towards women. Whereas MGTOW focuses on separating entirely from women, pickup artists focus on developing techniques to have sex with women. PUA communities have mocked MGTOW as "Virgins Going Their Own Way".
These are contradictory statements. If PUAs and MGTOWers fundamentally oppose each other, how can they have mutual membership? That's how I understand this. To be honest, I'm not bothered to go through the refs right now (coz it's a lotta work) but I just thought to bring this up for anyone who might want to improve the article — Python Drink (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about the sentence in the History section, not the lead? The two groups referred to in that sentence are "MGTOW" and "alt-right", not "MGTOW" and "PUAs". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class Alternative Views articles
- Low-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- B-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/26 December 2015
- Accepted AfC submissions
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Low-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class Men's Issues articles
- Low-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles